Congratulations to Will and Kate from the LP, and why I am a Monarchist.

800px-The_royal_family_on_the_balconyFirstly I would like to start by congratulating Will and Kate on the wonderful news. The line of succession to the head of state of 16 different states is now (at least, in theory) guaranteed for the next century. This is a truly momentous occasion. I wish the couple and their impending bundle of joy all the very best.

Why I am a monarchist

I believe in the monarchy, the royal family and all its institutions. I believe the Queen and all her family are a fundamental part of the British state. I will say that the argument I am about to make is based solely on the argument for a British monarch, I can’t speak on behalf of the Australians etc…

When I lived in Argentina for a year I was forced to think carefully about why I believed in the monarchy. I had never really thought about this question before. I just kind of, believed. Argentines are however less forgiving, and don’t accept this as a good answer! So I had to come up with one.

These are my reasons (using the example of the US president for comparison):

1.Elizabeth is the official representative of the British people. Obama only really represents 50.9% of the USA, i.e. those who elected them.

2.She holds constitutional/ceremonial power, but no political power, and indeed is obliged not to express political opinions. Obama has all sorts of political powers. So…

…3.When Elizabeth visits another country, she is there on behalf of Britain, and has no political baggage. Obama, when visiting another country, arrives with all the political baggage of his party, his controversial decisions, his views.

4. Elizabeth has been the head of state for 60 years. That is 60 years of proudly representing Britain. She has seen prime ministers come and go. She has an incredible wealth of experience and diplomatic skill. Barack Obama was a senator for 4 whole years before becoming the 44th President.

5.In an age of political elites, where politicians find it very difficult to think much further than the next election, the monarch is a rock of stability which we can look to. Barack will be gone in 4 years.

Here’s to many centuries more!

Edmund Greaves is co-editor of The Libertarian Press. He also writes travel articles at the


  1. Michael JR Jose says:

    So you think O will be gone in four (4) years? Some Americans have long suspected that he is going for a third term, by hook or by crook, or by Declaration Of A National State Of Emergency, the NDAA, war, etc…want to put a bet on?

  2. Two words: Straw Man.

    While Americans have a politically elected HoS, this is the exception, rather than the norm. Republic, the largest republican organisation in the UK, are against political heads of state, and see the threat of President Blair or President Thatcher as a straw man trope. No British republicans are suggesting that Cameron or Milliband should replace the Queen; we are advocating a non-party-political candidate. Someone who reminds you of the best of British values, and not an adulterous embarrassment like Prince Charles. My preferred choice would be David Attenborough.

    And Edmund, yes the Queen has been a remarkably good monarch, in that she has had little political influence, but the same cannot be said about Prince Charles. It is public knowledge that he regularly interferes in the running of democratic government, and his handwritten letters are dreaded by ministers. If you want to craft a worthy defence of monarchism then at least do yourself the service of defending against republicanism at its best. None of your arguments would stand up against an informed, British republicanism.

    James Jackson

  3. In fact, on further exploration of the site, it seems one of your contributors has put it very eloquently.

%d bloggers like this: